Army Adds 22 Charges Against Intelligence Analyst

FORTLESLEY J. MCNAIR, D.C., March 2, 2011 — After sev­en months of addi­tion­al inves­ti­ga­tion by the U.S. Army Crim­i­nal Inves­ti­ga­tion Com­mand and oth­er inves­tiga­tive agen­cies, the Army has added 22 charges in the case of a mil­i­tary intel­li­gence ana­lyst accused of leak­ing clas­si­fied mate­r­i­al. The new charges against Pvt. 1st Class Bradley E. Man­ning allege that he intro­duced unau­tho­rized soft­ware onto gov­ern­ment com­put­ers to extract clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion, unlaw­ful­ly down­loaded it, improp­er­ly stored it, and trans­mit­ted the clas­si­fied data for pub­lic release and use by the ene­my.

The inves­ti­ga­tion remains ongo­ing, offi­cials said.

“The new charges more accu­rate­ly reflect the broad scope of the crimes that Pri­vate 1st Class Man­ning is accused of com­mit­ting,” said Capt. John Haber­land, a legal spokesman for U.S. Army Mil­i­tary Dis­trict of Wash­ing­ton. “The new charges will not affect Pri­vate 1st Class Manning’s right to a speedy tri­al or his pre­tri­al con­fine­ment.”

U.S. mil­i­tary offi­cials in Bagh­dad pre­ferred two charges con­sist­ing of 12 spec­i­fi­ca­tions against Man­ning on July 5. Offi­cials said the com­man­der of U.S. Army Head­quar­ters Com­mand Bat­tal­ion pre­ferred the new charges yes­ter­day.

In addi­tion to a charge of aid­ing the ene­my in vio­la­tion of Arti­cle 104 of the Uni­form Code of Mil­i­tary Jus­tice, the new charges include 16 spec­i­fi­ca­tions under the UCMJ’s Arti­cle 134:

One spec­i­fi­ca­tion of wrong­ful­ly caus­ing intel­li­gence to be pub­lished on the Inter­net know­ing that it is acces­si­ble to the ene­my;

Five spec­i­fi­ca­tions of theft of pub­lic prop­er­ty or records, in vio­la­tion of 18 U.S. Code 641;

Two spec­i­fi­ca­tions of fraud and relat­ed activ­i­ty in con­nec­tion with com­put­ers in vio­la­tion of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1); and

Five spec­i­fi­ca­tions in vio­la­tion of Arti­cle 92 of the UCMJ for vio­lat­ing Army Reg­u­la­tions 25–2, “Infor­ma­tion Assur­ance,” and 380–5, “Depart­ment of the Army Infor­ma­tion Secu­ri­ty Pro­gram.”

The charge of aid­ing the ene­my under Arti­cle 104 is a cap­i­tal offense, offi­cials said. How­ev­er, they added, the pros­e­cu­tion team has noti­fied the defense that the pros­e­cu­tion will not rec­om­mend the death penal­ty to the con­ven­ing author­i­ty, Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, com­mand­ing gen­er­al of the U.S. Army Mil­i­tary Dis­trict of Wash­ing­ton.

Under the UCMJ, the con­ven­ing author­i­ty ulti­mate­ly decides what charges to refer to court-mar­tial, and whether to seek the death penal­ty if Arti­cle 104 is referred. There­fore, if con­vict­ed of all charges, Man­ning would face a max­i­mum pun­ish­ment of reduc­tion to the low­est enlist­ed pay grade,; total for­fei­ture of all pay and allowances, con­fine­ment for life, and a dis­hon­or­able dis­charge.

At the request of Manning’s defense attor­neys, the tri­al pro­ceed­ings have been delayed since July 12, pend­ing the results of a defense-request­ed inquiry into Manning’s men­tal capac­i­ty and respon­si­bil­i­ty, pur­suant to Rule for Courts-Mar­tial 706. Depend­ing on the results of the inquiry, an Arti­cle 32 hear­ing may fol­low, offi­cials said. An Arti­cle 32 hear­ing is the civil­ian equiv­a­lent of a grand jury, with addi­tion­al rights afford­ed to the accused, they explained.

Man­ning remains con­fined in the Marine Corps Base Quan­ti­co brig in Quan­ti­co, Va. He was noti­fied of the addi­tion­al charges in per­son dur­ing a com­mand vis­it today, offi­cials said.

Offi­cials empha­sized that Man­ning is pre­sumed inno­cent until proven guilty, and added that the Army is com­mit­ted to ensur­ing his con­tin­ued safe­ty and well-being while in pre­tri­al con­fine­ment.

Source: From a U.S. Army Mil­i­tary Dis­trict of Wash­ing­ton News Release